Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Counter Attack Problems?

  1. #1

    USA Captain

    [1st Cav] Shifty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    34

    Counter Attack Problems?

    I don't know if anyone else is feeling the same way but on many maps i've realised that the point in a-lot of cases becomes useless especially to the attackers. Since the Counterattack lasts 20 minutes the attackers in my experience take the point and are then bled ticket wise as the defenders can sit back and bleed their tickets for 20 minutes and hence a-lot of the matches now become ticket games and the point becomes impractical.. I don't know if anyone else agrees or if i'm wrong but would love to hear everyones opinion. Personally i think the counter attack is a great idea but the time needs to shortened.

    Regards,

    1st Cav Shifty
    Recon

  2. #2
    WoR-Dev TrustyJam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    4,889
    Hi there!

    Thanks for your feedback. We'd love to hear as much of it as possible in the coming weeks as the new additions to the game gets even more tested.

    The 20 minutes is only the time if the point is caputured while the defenders are at Battle Ready.

    Part of the goal of bringing counter attacks into the game is to open up more tactical choices for both teams. This means reducing the amount of importance the point of contention has in order to make other tactics viable.

    No one is forcing the attackers to take the point when the defenders are at Battle Ready if they don't deem it the best tactical choice. They are as free to hang back and play the ticket game as the defenders are.

    Another goal of ours when we designed the addition was to make the matches more so about actually defeating the enemy force, not just about getting a foothold of a specific position - but instead have the game play out around the points as a sort of initial ingredient making sure fighting does happen. In short, if a defender deems it best to let you advance and take a certain, possibly very exposed, position while they are battle ready - chances are you'd be better off not granting them that wish.

    I've been partaking in quite a few matches after the release and I've compiled a list of issues both related and unrelated to it which I'll keep on expanding upon as feedback from you guys start coming in so please do keep it up, thank you.

    - Trusty

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by TrustyJam View Post
    Hi there!
    Part of the goal of bringing counter attacks into the game is to open up more tactical choices for both teams. This means reducing the amount of importance the point of contention has in order to make other tactics viable.

    No one is forcing the attackers to take the point when the defenders are at Battle Ready if they don't deem it the best tactical choice. They are as free to hang back and play the ticket game as the defenders are.
    So in other words, in your attempt to "make other tactics viable", you removed any sense of strategy for units which use movement, feints and charges to take the point of contention from the defenders. The only game there is now is a ticket game.

    If the attackers outsmart the defenders and take the objective within the first 5 minutes of a round, that should be their reward for good strategy. If the defenders are able to organize a counter offensive and push the attackers off the PoC, their reward is not losing.

    The way things are now, a defending unit can sit back from a safe position and rain down bullets on the attacking force sitting on point. The only consideration they have to make is whether time runs out before the attacker's tickets do. And if they are pressed for time, they can simply charge and remove a battered, bullet-riddled attacking force to receive a little morale boost. The only recourse the attackers have then is to back off and turn the game into a shootout over tickets.

    Games used to be quick and kinetic, with the PoC often turning into a meat grinder as both sides trades shots and bayonet charges to push each other back. The low cap timer would light a fire under the defenders and force themselves to take the point back, while the attackers scrambled to regroup and prepare for the incoming counter offensive. Now, games are dull, plodding, and reduced to two units shooting each other from range with no sense of urgency or strategy. If I wanted to hole up in one spot and shoot at far away pixels for 45 minutes at a time, I'd play Red Orchestra 2.

    Perhaps in the future of War of Rights the ability to hold an objective for extended periods and reducing enemy numbers will prove to be fun on larger battlefields with more players. But right now the Counterattack system has murdered the fast-paced style of gameplay that the majority of units use during events.

    I, and many others despise playing this now.

  4. #4
    WoR-Dev TrustyJam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    4,889
    Quote Originally Posted by J. Coren View Post
    So in other words, in your attempt to "make other tactics viable", you removed any sense of strategy for units which use movement, feints and charges to take the point of contention from the defenders. The only game there is now is a ticket game.

    If the attackers outsmart the defenders and take the objective within the first 5 minutes of a round, that should be their reward for good strategy. If the defenders are able to organize a counter offensive and push the attackers off the PoC, their reward is not losing.

    The way things are now, a defending unit can sit back from a safe position and rain down bullets on the attacking force sitting on point. The only consideration they have to make is whether time runs out before the attacker's tickets do. And if they are pressed for time, they can simply charge and remove a battered, bullet-riddled attacking force to receive a little morale boost. The only recourse the attackers have then is to back off and turn the game into a shootout over tickets.

    Games used to be quick and kinetic, with the PoC often turning into a meat grinder as both sides trades shots and bayonet charges to push each other back. The low cap timer would light a fire under the defenders and force themselves to take the point back, while the attackers scrambled to regroup and prepare for the incoming counter offensive. Now, games are dull, plodding, and reduced to two units shooting each other from range with no sense of urgency or strategy. If I wanted to hole up in one spot and shoot at far away pixels for 45 minutes at a time, I'd play Red Orchestra 2.

    Perhaps in the future of War of Rights the ability to hold an objective for extended periods and reducing enemy numbers will prove to be fun on larger battlefields with more players. But right now the Counterattack system has murdered the fast-paced style of gameplay that the majority of units use during events.

    I, and many others despise playing this now.
    I thank you for your honest feedback - but it is not something I have experienced during my playtesting so far.

    In my experience, the faster cap times, the less focus on forcing the defender to sit on the point for 45 minutes straight or force the attacker to charge headlong into it for 45 minutes straight has caused a more dynamic, less locked down battlefield as it has introduced more tactical choice, not less.

    To me, your description of it turning into a slow paced one tracked game for 45 minutes straight sounds like you're describing the mode without the counter-attack mechanic in place.

    I don't agree that rushing to the point and capping it within the first few minutes of a game should be considered an overall victory. Sure, it's a gain in terms of getting a foothold of the designated point - but such a point is of little use to capture if you are still up to your elbows in enemies around you whom you haven't defeated just because you have occupied a position. That being said, I still think a quick start of the round capture has its advantages. It puts pressure on the enemy to retake the point (and doing so with a much shorter timer than your own team had).

    I'm sorry you despise playing this already after a few days of its deployment - a bit of a rash conclusion if I may say so but each to their own. I hope you will either grow to like it or continue to provide feedback so we may improve further upon it.

    - Trusty

  5. #5
    I'm no developer or designer by any means, but I think the pace of the game has been significantly thrown with the extremely rapid cap. I've experienced a point loss at Breaking as the Defenders almost before I had a chance to finish reloading while crouched - and while a Counterattack couldn't happen then anyhow, it's still really, really fast. There's no time to effectively mount an assault as the Defending team without being on the Counterattack and no incentive as the Attackers to try and push the point when the enemy team is above Breaking because of the risk of being unable to hold and giving the Defending team a morale boost. I'd be interested to see what the Counterattack mechanic looks like with the old, slower cap back in place. The balance between slow-and-deliberate combat suddenly turning fast-and-frenetic (and vice-versa) is one the neater things about WoR, and that equilibrium has been greatly undone imo. While there are more tactical options available, they all seem to come down to ignoring the point - and at that point you're sort of just playing team deathmatch instead of a battlefield Skirmish.

    Perhaps forcing the Defenders to move onto the point la the old Last Stand when Counterattacking - say, you have 120 seconds to get to the point or you concede the ground - would better represent a Counterattack? As it is, having 6, 12, 20 minutes to sit and shoot before needing to take the point means the Defenders have plenty of time to set up and bleed the Attackers' tickets, which doesn't feel all too representative of the mad scramble to get your men back onto the ground you've been ordered to hold. Suddenly the Attackers are defending, without the benefits of being able to organize themselves as effectively and often being stuck completely out in the open. Add to that all of the guys you lost in the assault on the point in the first place and there's little possibility of the Attackers being able to hold from what I've seen. Imo, it just feels useless now to make any early surge onto the point as the Attackers when you know the drawbacks to doing so greatly outweigh any of the benefits of success.

    Or, to up the incentive for the Attacking team to try and dig in and hold, halving the time necessary for Attackers to spawn on flag when the Defenders are on the Counterattack. Since this mechanic flips the conceit of the round from assaulting a position to holding it, this could represent the attacking force moving reserves rapidly to the area where they're needed most on the battlefield. It would also make knocking down the flagbearer - and keeping the flag up/alive - even more tactically important, which could be neat.

    Maybe pausing the morale ticker for the Attacking team while defending against a Counterattack, even, to represent a surge in bravery as they dig in and try and win the day.

    I don't know and I don't claim to have the best suggestions - especially ones that haven't been asked for, at that. But a lot of the tension of trying to hold as the Attackers feels like it's been undone due to the Counterattack mechanic. The moment you begin to lose cap and can't move enough guys back due to the new speed at which you capture/lose point, you know the enemy is about to jump right back up in morale, undoing a significant amount of your side's work to cut their numbers down before making a push.

    All that said, I haven't played through a Counterattack from the Defending side yet, only on the offensive, so my perspective is coming from solely that experience.

    Best,

    9th NY Hammerhands

  6. #6

    USA General of the Army

    Oleander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    611
    Our experience was a little different, the battles seemed like they were more vicious than before since the cap falls faster and there's more desperation to get it. The one thing we all sort of agreed on was either have counter attack or the end of round events, not both. It seemed a little off when both were in play.

  7. #7
    The main problem is the final push and last stand disparity doesn't make much sense especially when the two teams can swap places.

    I don't know about you but the pre-counterattack system was stupid as #%@* and I'm very glad that teams can't just bum rush the objective and cycle the map for posterity anymore. It was a great way to kill gameplay and a server. I had some fun for the first time in a while. Now we just need planning periods and game_rounds and things would make a lot more sense. 24/7 Burnside Bridge and such without requiring team scrambles.

    I'm a little concerned though if I hiked the team_morale values up on a server to a point where it's not so much of a factor then you might just end with near-infinite counterattacks.
    Suggestion: Formations, Suppression, Spawning, Leadership https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZqPsbvyD8s


    Old Pennsylvania Discord: https://discord.gg/MjxfZ5n

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by TrustyJam View Post
    In my experience, the faster cap times, the less focus on forcing the defender to sit on the point for 45 minutes straight or force the attacker to charge headlong into it for 45 minutes straight has caused a more dynamic, less locked down battlefield as it has introduced more tactical choice, not less.

    To me, your description of it turning into a slow paced one tracked game for 45 minutes straight sounds like you're describing the mode without the counter-attack mechanic in place.
    - Trusty
    I only came to the forum to ask the counter attack be made optional by administrators running the server. It's been my experience that CA has prolonged the game and made it so I can't attend events beyond the 1st of three matches, where as previously I could. From what I have learned in games if a game favors the defenders too much the tactic of choice becomes turtling, and that is what I am seeing. Defenders aren't even inclined to defend the point so much as fire from a safe distance. Attackers don't want to because they end up being killed in an effort to defend the point, and knowing that the defenders get moral back if the attackers can't defend it, don't even want to.

    Maybe its an acquired taste, I just think it should be disable-able.

  9. #9

    CSA Captain

    Sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    England
    Posts
    379
    I have always firmly believed that the capture points should have been tied to morale. The Sunken Road, for example could have four capture points, but all four remain inactive until the defenders morale drops to a certain value. Let's say that value is 'Breaking', once the defenders morale drops to breaking, then one of the capture points flags as active & can be captured by the attacking side. In this instance counter attack would make perfect sense, as well as adding more tactical options for both defenders & attackers.
    ''I'm here to play an American Civil War era combat game, not Call of Duty with muskets.''.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •